NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey there everyone, this is your favorite person, once again making a thread asking some questions. This time i have a few open ended questions about World War Two.

1) Was the Shoah(Holocaust) Preplanned by the Nazis, ie like when the party was first started, or was it something that just came along with time?

2)Which battle was the most important of the whole war? Why?

3)Could it have been possible that the axis would of won if they would of done somethings different, ie Invade Britain, instead of JUST bombing?

4) How would the war of been different if Fancisco Franco joined in the war on the Axis, instead of being neutral?

Ok those are the questions. Please give detailed, well written answers. Have fun!

Hey there everyone, this is your favorite person, once again making a thread asking some questions. This time i have a few open ended questions about World War Two.

1) Was the Shoah(Holocaust) Preplanned by the Nazis, ie like when the party was first started, or was it something that just came along with time?

If I remember right, the plans came later but the idea was there since the beginning.....


2)Which battle was the most important of the whole war? Why?

I would vote either the Battle of Britain or Stalingrad. The BofB showed the Nazis could be stopped and they lost many pilots and plains.

Stalingrad is obvious.

Then there is the Battle of Al-Alamein. Kept the Nazis out of the Suez and the Middle East.


3)Could it have been possible that the axis would of won if they would of done somethings different, ie Invade Britain, instead of bomb?

Invade instead of Bomb? You can't do one without the other. If they tried to launch an invasion, the RAF and the RN would have pasted the invasion forces on the sea.


4) How would the war of been different if Fancisco Franco joined in the war on the Axis, instead of being neutral?

Doubtful, what could they have done? Taken Gibralter maybe?

Hey there everyone, this is your favorite person, once again making a thread asking some questions. This time i have a few open ended questions about World War Two.

1) Was the Shoah(Holocaust) Preplanned by the Nazis, ie like when the party was first started, or was it something that just came along with time?

2)Which battle was the most important of the whole war? Why?

3)Could it have been possible that the axis would of won if they would of done somethings different, ie Invade Britain, instead of bomb?

4) How would the war of been different if Fancisco Franco joined in the war on the Axis, instead of being neutral?

Ok those are the questions. Please give detailed, well written answers. Have fun!

1] Who's to know. It would be conjecture but probably something of a plan originally in the top leaders minds in the very early days of power, that took fruition and then snowballed when they were getting away with it.

2]For me, Kursk. The largest tank battle in history and the decisive breaking of the Wehrmacht in the East, before D-Day and it was the first true indication that the tide was turning in Europe. The Russians were back with a bang.... (all my opinion of course)

3]If they hadn't of stopped bombing the airfields and switched to cities then the RAF was all but broken in a few more days... who's to know what might have happened?

4]Not much really, Franco was too busy trying consolidate power in Spain. Too busy, underfunded, under-resourced and exhausted to make much of a difference.

Hey there everyone, this is your favorite person, once again making a thread asking some questions. This time i have a few open ended questions about World War Two.

1) Was the Shoah(Holocaust) Preplanned by the Nazis, ie like when the party was first started, or was it something that just came along with time?

2)Which battle was the most important of the whole war? Why?

3)Could it have been possible that the axis would of won if they would of done somethings different, ie Invade Britain, instead of bomb?

4) How would the war of been different if Fancisco Franco joined in the war on the Axis, instead of being neutral?

Ok those are the questions. Please give detailed, well written answers. Have fun!

1) You can't be sure. Officially the final solution was created in January 1942 at Wannsee, but it may have been planned before then. You'd would have need to be a high ranking Nazi circa 1942 to know for sure.

2) Again, it's a matter of opinion. Probably Stalingrad because of the number of lives lost by the axis and the eventual end of the German occupation of the USSR as a result of this loss.

3) Germany probably couldn't have invaded Britain without bombing it first, they came very close during the battle of Britain but changed tactics to allow a recovery. If America hadn't got involved or the Soviet Union not been invaded Germany could well have won.

4) Spain were not a major power in terms of their military especially after the civil war so it wouldn't have made a great difference in my opinion.

I love doing other peoples homework.

Hey there everyone, this is your favorite person, once again making a thread asking some questions. This time i have a few open ended questions about World War Two.

1) Was the Holocaust Preplanned by the Nazis, ie like when the party was first started, or was it something that just came along with time?

Preplanned, I would think. It's a fundamental part of the plan for Greater Germany to remove Jews, Poles, Slavs, etc. You know, all the trash.

2)Which battle was the most important of the whole war? Why?

Battle of Midway. It crushed the IJN's plan to draw USA into a quick defeat, and forced them to concentrate on protecting their empire against us instead of allowing them to tie up the Soviet Union in the East.

3)Could it have been possible that the axis would of won if they would of done somethings different, ie Invade Britain, instead of bomb?

If the Japanese had attacked the Soviets instead of the USA, the massive Soviet war machine would be split between an Eastern and Western front, allowing Hitler much greater liberty with his troops.

4) How would the war of been different if Fancisco Franco joined in the war on the Axis, instead of being neutral?

Gibraltar might be Spanish, and the Mediterranean an Axis lake. This would have benefitted the African campaigns immensely, I imagine.

Hey there everyone, this is your favorite person, once again making a thread asking some questions. This time i have a few open ended questions about World War Two.

1) Was the Shoah(Holocaust) Preplanned by the Nazis, ie like when the party was first started, or was it something that just came along with time?

2)Which battle was the most important of the whole war? Why?

3)Could it have been possible that the axis would of won if they would of done somethings different, ie Invade Britain, instead of bomb?

4) How would the war of been different if Fancisco Franco joined in the war on the Axis, instead of being neutral?

Ok those are the questions. Please give detailed, well written answers. Have fun!
1. I don't think so. It simply arose out of the Nazi's extreme zenophobia.

2. I would have to say the Normandy invasion. Had this been unsuccessful, the Allies would have been set back several years, and may have even wound up suing for peace.

3. Perhaps, but I don't think so. The Axis was militarily strong, but had serious economic weaknesses. Operation Sealion was doomed from the start, so that wouldn't have been an option, IMHO.

4. Franco's Spain was economically virtually prostrate after the long and costly civil war, which was the primary reason he elected to remain "neutral," although lending intelligence and other types of sub rosa support to Germany.

2)Which battle was the most important of the whole war? Why?

Probably the Invasion of Normandy. Without it's success, the Allied forces would have needed at minimum a year to regroup and try again. It would have been horrible for moral, and the Russians would have continued to battle the Nazi war machine on their own.


3)Could it have been possible that the axis would of won if they would of done somethings different, ie Invade Britain, instead of bomb?


If Hitler hadn't turned against Stalin, he would have won. The Russians engaged 80% of German forces, and only managed to retake Stalingrad after taking 95% casualties among soldiers and non-commissioned officers (I just studied this in my college history course, and I'm pretty sure this is correct) Only the when the Allies opened a second front did it divide German forces enough for victory.

If Germany hadn't attacked Russia, or could have convinced Japan to open a second front against Russia (they kicked ass the Russo-Japanese war after all) we'd all be speaking German or Japanese right now.

Hey there everyone, this is your favorite person, once again making a thread asking some questions. This time i have a few open ended questions about World War Two.

1) Was the Shoah(Holocaust) Preplanned by the Nazis, ie like when the party was first started, or was it something that just came along with time?

2)Which battle was the most important of the whole war? Why?

3)Could it have been possible that the axis would of won if they would of done somethings different, ie Invade Britain, instead of bomb?

4) How would the war of been different if Fancisco Franco joined in the war on the Axis, instead of being neutral?

Ok those are the questions. Please give detailed, well written answers. Have fun!


1. That's debatable. I think that Hitler just took the "jewish scrapegoat" platform to come to power, and the Holocaust was just where it went as it gathered momentum and got out of control.

2. Most important battle... hrmmmm... I would have to say Operation Barbarossa as a whole, because if Hitler had conquered Russia, the war could have gone very, very badly for the allies indeed. But once again, it is debatable.

3. Oh yes, the Axis could have won. I think their best chance would have been invading Britain in 1941, because the could have easily beaten them, and then a. America has no staging point for d-day, and b., they can direct their full might at Russia, protecting their flanks and rolling right in.

4. Spain could have served as a launching point for an invasion of Europe, but I believe that it is very unlikely that Spain would have gone as far as to support the allies, what with their goverment being as it was, and Hitler as such a close neighbor. Besides, if anything, they were very axis slanted during the war.

Hope that helps you out!

Ooh, been a while since I frequented in WWII forums, but...

1) No, a systematic elimination of the Jewish people was not the original intent. In Hitler's book (both figuratively and literally), the Jewish people were always subhuman and to be removed. However, in the beginning, the Nazis followed a policy of segregation and removal, rather than genocide. The Jews were put into ghettoes, marked with flair and such. The Nazis also envision removing them from German soil entirely. Early on, they tried negotiating with the British plans for the Royal Navy to transport hundreds of thousands of Jews to Madagascar. The British refuse, unable to foresee the Holocaust, and the rest is history.

2)It's next to impossible to pick out a single battle and point to it as "the most important." There were three theaters of combat: the Atlantic, Russian, and African campaigns (concerning Germany). In Africa, the problem was really that Hitler never fully committed to it. Things seesawed back and forth several times, with the Germans gaining the upperhand several times. However, they always lost it again. In the Atlantic, the Allies eventually won the Battle of the Atlantic, opening up their shipping lanes and decimating the German navy, including the submarines. This opened up the path that would lead to the Western Front and Operation Overlord. In Russia, many would point to Stalingrad as THE moment, and yes, that was the defeat that all but ended German hopes of final victory in Russia. However, I say the real moment of defeat was in 1943 during the first German offensive, outside of Moscow. Had the Germans succeeded in taking Moscow during that first offensive, things quite conceivably could have gone differently. It was the focal point for Russia's communication (land lines) and transportion (major railroad intersection), as well as the seat of government.

3)Oh boy, that's a can of worms. Those so many possibilities, so I'll just focus on the Russian campaign, which I hold to have been the most important. First off, it's suicide to underestimate your enemy, maniacally so to the extent Hitler misjudged the Russians. You can't conquer a country the size of Russia in a matter of weeks. Troops were neither prepared for or expecting cold weather. Thousands were lost to the severe cold once winter set in; they had no coats! Also, indecisiveness was debilitating. After the initial victories on the border, the Germans had no clear idea what to do. Forces were literally shuffled between the Crimean front in the south (Stalingrad), and the central front (Moscow). Hitler would choose one front as the focal point of the new offensive, move the troops, and then change his mind once they got there and shuffle them back. Valuable weeks were lost this way. A few weeks lost may not seem important in a war lasting for six years, but they were amazingly crucial in this time. Russian troops were reeling, disorganized, and on the point of the knife. By the time Hitler finally committed to the southern front, the Russians stood a much better chance of survival, as shown when German troops finally stuttered to a halt outside of Stalingrad, which only a few weeks before had almost no defences. Lastly, mass genocidal mania is never a good thing. Especially in this case. Stalin was no kind ruler, and it has been widely ruminated that the Russian people were ready to rise up against him. Millions had been slaughtered by Stalin, including entire regions that he starved to death. And yet, Hitlers pogrom of terror that he unleashed the instant he stepped onto Russian soil drove the people into Stalin's arms. Literally, German death squads followed right behind the advancing front lines. As bad as Stalin was, no one could even contemplate trading him for Hitler. Had Hitler held off on the butchering (or better yet, not been such a wackjob and NEVER started the genocide), the Russian could well have gone to the German side. Then, Russia's fall would have been inevitable.
4) Dunno. Haven't read anything about Spain's capabilities during that time. Perhaps now I will... excellent question.

"scrapegoat"
lol

Honestly, I find it hard to feel bad for the Jews who died in the Holocaust anymore, because they're the only ones who ever get any attention. :/

**Note**

This is not for any homework as someone said. lol No, we were talking about ww2 in my w. Hist. Class, and these were things i was going to ask, But decided not to. Its just for fun, based on opinoin thats all :D

Hey there everyone, this is your favorite person, once again making a thread asking some questions. This time i have a few open ended questions about World War Two.

1) Was the Shoah(Holocaust) Preplanned by the Nazis, ie like when the party was first started, or was it something that just came along with time?

2)Which battle was the most important of the whole war? Why?

3)Could it have been possible that the axis would of won if they would of done somethings different, ie Invade Britain, instead of bomb?

4) How would the war of been different if Fancisco Franco joined in the war on the Axis, instead of being neutral?

Ok those are the questions. Please give detailed, well written answers. Have fun!

Homework, huh?

1) Read the early works of A. Hitler, his irrational hatred of the jews permeated his whole being, so maybe it was not preplanned in the Nazi movement but in their leaders head.

2) Stalingrad was only the culminating point of to far outstretched ressources...the battle of Kursk maybe better on the eastern front, the german forces lost most of their tanks, thus loosing their mobility and prime m of warfare. Midway in the pacific (see above)

3) No, I think not, not enough industrial reserves...perhaps if Nazi Germany could have been patient and await the domination of the smaller, weaker eastern european states...but not part of Hitlers philosophy (if one can call it that)

4) No, spain was a military and economical small power...and gibraltar would not have made all change.

Helped you?

1) Was the Shoah(Holocaust) Preplanned by the Nazis, ie like when the party was first started, or was it something that just came along with time? They wanted to exterminate the Jews from the beginning - however, at the start their methods were different, such as starving them in the ghettos. They made up the Final Solution a while later.

2)Which battle was the most important of the whole war? Why? Battle of Berlin was the most important in the long term, because of its ramifications for after the war and the way that the East Germans hated the Russians after it, so East Germany was weakened.

3)Could it have been possible that the axis would of won if they would of done somethings different, ie Invade Britain, instead of JUST bombing? The bombing was a preliminary assault. They wouldn't have been able to take Britain without getting rid of the airforce and the ground defences by bombing.

4) How would the war of been different if Francisco Franco joined in the war on the Axis, instead of being neutral? Not… sure.

[QUOTE=Zilam]Hey there everyone, this is your favorite person, once again making a thread asking some questions. This time i have a few open ended questions about World War Two.

1) Was the Shoah(Holocaust) Preplanned by the Nazis, ie like when the party was first started, or was it something that just came along with time?
PrePlanned..the Nazi party had an ideology of bastardized Darwinian Theory crossed with Wagnerian Myth...Every masterrace needs an excuse why they aren't and never will be ruling evrryone else.
2)Which battle was the most important of the whole war? Why?
Has to be Battle of Britain...first prpoer stand against Hitler that halted his progress (and God bless ALL the British, Commonwealth and Free Army pilots)
3)Could it have been possible that the axis would of won if they would of done somethings different, ie Invade Britain, instead of JUST bombing?
Like earlier..couldn't do it without taking out the RAF first , and although the spitfire was good the Hurricane was more handy (easily fixed) and thank god for radar ( and maybe German arrogance too)
4) How would the war of been different if Fancisco Franco joined in the war on the Axis, instead of being neutral?
Nah, pointless country well versed in getting trounced by the British....Wannabes

**Note**

This is not for any homework as someone said. lol No, we were talking about ww2 in my w. Hist. Class, and these were things i was going to ask, But decided not to. Its just for fun, based on opinoin thats all :D

Gotcha! ;)

If I'd have known, I might have been a lot more partisan in my answers and exuded anti-Nazi anathema in every word.

Hey there everyone, this is your favorite person, once again making a thread asking some questions. This time i have a few open ended questions about World War Two.

1) Was the Shoah(Holocaust) Preplanned by the Nazis, ie like when the party was first started, or was it something that just came along with time?

2)Which battle was the most important of the whole war? Why?

3)Could it have been possible that the axis would of won if they would of done somethings different, ie Invade Britain, instead of JUST bombing?

4) How would the war of been different if Fancisco Franco joined in the war on the Axis, instead of being neutral?

Ok those are the questions. Please give detailed, well written answers. Have fun!

1. Something that came along. The National Socialist Party started as a benign party campaigning for worker's rights.

2. Stalingrad.

3. Nope. The Axis was doomed from the start. Outnumbered 10-1, tiny industry, and when Germany entered the war, it was considered a 3rd world coutnry. The fact they managed to last more then 2 days was amazing. It's like Tibet conquering China.

4. Nope. Still would have lost.

3. Nope. The Axis was doomed from the start. Outnumbered 10-1, tiny industry, and when Germany entered the war, it was considered a 3rd world coutnry. The fact they managed to last more then 2 days was amazing. It's like Tibet conquering China.
Then the rest of the world was just extremely incompetent in allowing the Nazis to kick their asses for so long?

Then the rest of the world was just extremely incompetent in allowing the Nazis to kick their asses for so long?

Nope. The German war machine was nothing to scoff at. It was pretty damned powerful.

Nope. The German war machine was nothing to scoff at. It was pretty damned powerful.
That's not what Serapindal is saying

1) Was the Shoah(Holocaust) Preplanned by the Nazis, ie like when the party was first started, or was it something that just came along with time?
The hatred of the Jews was absolutely central to Nazi Ideology, from Mein Kampf over the propaganda material before and during power to the constant rhetoric of Jews as agents of the enemy powers.
The Holocaust was not really explicitly planned until the NSDAP came to power, particularly in the Wannsee Conference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference).

2)Which battle was the most important of the whole war? Why?
In the Pacific that would be Midway.
In Africa it probably there probably isn't one single one - El Alamein happened at a time when the war was pretty much over there, Rommel hadn't the slightest chance of winning.
In the East, I'd actually say Moscow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow) in 1941. If Stalingrad could have been won (yeah, fat chance) then that still wouldn't have killed off the Soviet Union, and the war would've had to go on with lines overstretched to the max.
In the West, it'll be the Battle of Britain.

3)Could it have been possible that the axis would of won if they would of done somethings different, ie Invade Britain, instead of JUST bombing?
Yes.
Had Göring not taken to bombing London but instead continued to bomb the RAF, chances were that Germany could've gained Supremacy afterall, thus allowing Operation Sealion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sealion) to commence. That would've meant no troops in South Eastern Europe, no troops in North Africa, a free Back for the Attack on Russia, and no place for the Americans to intervene in Europe. In short, they would've won the war.
Also, Hitler decided in '42 that the attack was to go at the Caucasus instead of at Moscow. Stupid idea if you ask me.

4) How would the war of been different if Fancisco Franco joined in the war on the Axis, instead of being neutral?
Well, he probably would've taken Gibraltar, and depending on the time, taken a little slice of France.
Other than that, Spain's military wasn't exactly impressive, but they would've made for a few good U-Boat Harbours, especially if they had taken Portugal.

I think the importance of Gibraltar is being understated in this thread. Because the British had control over the only entrance to the Mediterranean, it was impossible for German surface ships to enter. Without substantial naval support (impossible for Italy to provide), the Germans' ability to act in Africa was greatly limited, since they had to travel overland completely. This contributes not only to the loss of Africa, but subsequently to the use of Africa as a springboard into Italy, and its quick defeat. With Gibraltar opened, Germany may have been able to move substantial numbers of troops to any point along the north African coast, and perhaps prevent the invasion of Italy. If Africa is able to be held by fewer troops (that is, more troops can be quickly moved to counterattack the Allies in the event of an attack), that frees a lot of soldiers up to protect the sea wall and the eastern front.

Then the rest of the world was just extremely incompetent in allowing the Nazis to kick their asses for so long?

Yes. Extremely. The French lost because they lost completely. Total military failure, in every possible way. It's a miracle Germany won. They held off Britian for a while, because they had France.

They beat Russia temporarily, because at that time, Russia was also considered a third-world country. They held off the U.S.A., because it's 3000 miles across from the Atlantic, and it was too hard for the U.S.A. to transfer troops across.

Then they lost.

I think the importance of Gibraltar is being understated in this thread. Because the British had control over the only entrance to the Mediterranean, it was impossible for German surface ships to enter. Without substantial naval support (impossible for Italy to provide), the Germans' ability to act in Africa was greatly limited, since they had to travel overland completely.
Actually, the transports from Crete were doing fairly well, Malta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Malta_%281940%29) had been beaten into submission for a while. When Barbarossa started, the priorities were just shifted, and that's why the Brits were able to restock their air force in the mediterranean, while at the same time Rommel didn't get new supplies.

This contributes not only to the loss of Africa, but subsequently to the use of Africa as a springboard into Italy, and its quick defeat. With Gibraltar opened, Germany may have been able to move substantial numbers of troops to any point along the north African coast, and perhaps prevent the invasion of Italy.
Troops that would've been sorely missed in Russia.

If Africa is able to be held by fewer troops (that is, more troops can be quickly moved to counterattack the Allies in the event of an attack), that frees a lot of soldiers up to protect the sea wall and the eastern front.
You know how tiny the Afrikakorps was? How much smaller do you want to make it? Especially since the Allies landed in French territory anyways, such that any attack on them would've meant to also occupy the remainder of France at the same time, binding further forces.

Hey there everyone, this is your favorite person, once again making a thread asking some questions. This time i have a few open ended questions about World War Two.

1) Was the Shoah(Holocaust) Preplanned by the Nazis, ie like when the party was first started, or was it something that just came along with time?


2)Which battle was the most important of the whole war? Why?

3)Could it have been possible that the axis would of won if they would of done somethings different, ie Invade Britain, instead of JUST bombing?


4) How would the war of been different if Fancisco Franco joined in the war on the Axis, instead of being neutral?



Ok those are the questions. Please give detailed, well written answers. Have fun!

1.it was certainly not pre-planned that far back, Hitler originally spoke about expelling the jews outwith a German Reich, hes even been quoted as having said "the Jew has to learn we are the boss, if he behaves he can stay"
Hitler: Hubris 1889- 1936
Ian Kershaw

2. in my opinion the British defeat at Dunkirk was the most important, had hitler effictively bombed the beaches( as he was capable) he could have completely stopped any british resistance. and stalingrad for obvious reasons

3.yes, in short it could have been possible

4.France would have fallen harder and faster, cant see much other influence Franco would have had, his people would probaly have revolted at being forced into another war so soon after the Civil War.

Yes. Extremely.....
If Germany of 1939 was a third world country, then France and Britain were too, and especially the US.
What you're saying is ridiculous.

Actually, the transports from Crete were doing fairly well
You mean that having troop transports from Germany would have negligible impact on the African and Italian theaters?


Troops that would've been sorely missed in Russia.
I misspoke. The important thing that I think transports would provide is not manpower but mobility for the soldiers already deployed.[/quote]

You know how tiny the Afrikakorps was? How much smaller do you want to make it? Especially since the Allies landed in French territory anyways, such that any attack on them would've meant to also occupy the remainder of France at the same time, binding further forces.
Why not use French forces to occupy the points in danger?

If Germany of 1939 was a third world country, then France and Britain were too, and especially the US.
What you're saying is ridiculous.

I agree. Especially with how fast Germanys economy grew from hitler takeing power. It went from a Dollar being worth like 3,000,000 Reichsmarks to the Reichsmark almost equaling the DOllar and that was all at least 4 years before the war.

You mean that having troop transports from Germany would have negligible impact on the African and Italian theaters?
If they had been free, they might have had an impact. But Africa was never considered important enough to actually bother with, when at the same time 20 million soldiers were slogging it out in the East.

I misspoke. The important thing that I think transports would provide is not manpower but mobility for the soldiers already deployed.
And then leave the Brits to march right through again? If the idea was to take Egypt, you can't allow yourself to do that - some strongpoints (like Tobruk) were vital enough not to simply let them fall into the other side's hands.

Why not use French forces to occupy the points in danger?
Because the French were not particularly trustworthy when it came to the Nazi cause?
When the Allies first landed in French North Africa, the orders from Vichy were slow and conflicting because the Nazi-Sympathisers were catfighting with the Nationalists around Petain.
So since the Allies weren't exactly friendly, there were a few firefights between French and US forces (understandable after Mers-el-Kebir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_French_Fleet_at_Mers-el-Kebir)) - but as soon as DeGaulle stepped up, that was over.

If Germany of 1939 was a third world country, then France and Britain were too, and especially the US.
What you're saying is ridiculous.

The UK was the largest empire in the world. The sun never set on the British Commonwealth.

France was it's main competitor.

The U.S., yes, was a miniscule pip-squeak country. Then everyone saw our industrial output, and shit themselves.

The UK was the largest empire in the world. The sun never set on the British Commonwealth.
Population and industrial capacity
Population in 1939++++++++++++Steel output in tons
UK 47.961.000+++++++++++++++13.192.000
France 41.600.000++++++++++++6.221.000
USSR 190.000.000++++++++++++18.800.000
USA 132.122.000+++++++++++++51.380.000
Germany 76.008.000+++++++++++23.329.000
Italy 44.223.000++++++++++++++2.323.000
Japan 71.400.000+++++++++++++5.811.000

Population and industrial capacity by the British Empire Forces
Population in 1939++++++++++++Steel production in tons (1939)
Canada 11.682.000+++++++++++++1.407.000
South Africa (white) 2.161.000+++++250.000
Australia 6.807.000+++++++++++++1.189.000
New Zealand 1.585.000++++++++++--
India 374.200.000++++++++++++++1.035.000

The UK was the largest empire in the world. The sun never set on the British Commonwealth.

France was it's main competitor.

The U.S., yes, was a miniscule pip-squeak country. Then everyone saw our industrial output, and shit themselves.

That's right - industrial output. USSR and USA had the largest manufacturing industries prior to and during the war. But Germany was way ahead in terms of technological advancement, and this begun when the NSDAP 'seized' power. Ironically, the anti-Jewish policies resulted in a massive brain drain, but Germany managed to keep her speed up until she lost her oil and factories. In fact, right up until the final months of the war, German factories were still assembling more PzKpW IV, V, VI and VII's than there was crews and fuel for!

Germany was a welfare state only a few years after the depression (thanx to Bismarck and Hitler), while other western countries were still on their knees.

Hey there everyone, this is your favorite person, once again making a thread asking some questions. This time i have a few open ended questions about World War Two.

1) Was the Shoah(Holocaust) Preplanned by the Nazis, ie like when the party was first started, or was it something that just came along with time?

2)Which battle was the most important of the whole war? Why?

3)Could it have been possible that the axis would of won if they would of done somethings different, ie Invade Britain, instead of JUST bombing?

4) How would the war of been different if Fancisco Franco joined in the war on the Axis, instead of being neutral?

Ok those are the questions. Please give detailed, well written answers. Have fun!
1)They wanted to dump them on Madagascar.
2)Te El Alaimein and Stalingrad two big loses close together.
3)Yes Not attacked Russia or attacked it more not having 350K garrisoned troops in Norway.
Not attacking in Africa(Germany)
Attacking more in Africa(Germany)
4)Axis Victory as they could have swept the Allied Navies from the Med and had full control of it.

2)Te El Alaimein and Stalingrad two big loses close together.
They were two battles where there is no conceivable way that the Germans could've won, and they both were at a stage when the war was already lost.
I don't think they were that central.

Hey there everyone, this is your favorite person, once again making a thread asking some questions. This time i have a few open ended questions about World War Two.

1) Was the Shoah(Holocaust) Preplanned by the Nazis, ie like when the party was first started, or was it something that just came along with time?
(No comment)

2)Which battle was the most important of the whole war? Why?
Stalingrad, because it would have been the ultimate loss for the USSR. or
the Normandy Invasion, because it was the great triumph for the Allies as it became a major turning point in the war.

3)Could it have been possible that the axis would of won if they would of done somethings different, ie Invade Britain, instead of JUST bombing?
They could have invaded Britain shortly after the Battle of Britain while it was still crippled. The Nazis could have waited to fight Russia when they had more territory.

4) How would the war of been different if Fancisco Franco joined in the war on the Axis, instead of being neutral?
Probably. Depends on how strong he was in territory, military, and economy.

the Normandy Invasion, because it was the great triumph for the Allies as it became a major turning point in the war.
I said my bit about Stalingrad...but Normandy?
Why in the world is Normandy a turning point? If it was that would imply that the way things went somehow turned - which it obviously didn't.

I said my bit about Stalingrad...but Normandy?
Why in the world is Normandy a turning point? If it was that would imply that the way things went somehow turned - which it obviously didn't.
yeah...normandy is usually overblown

the thing is that getting troops into western europe was only important because we needed to keep the soviets from controlling germany after the war

like how we told the russkies to sit the fuck back down when they declared war on japan and tried to muscle in on our turf so they could have occupation zones

like how we told the russkies to sit the fuck back down when they declared war on japan and tried to muscle in on our turf so they could have occupation zones
They got North Korea...and some argue that it was actually that which made the Japanese surrender, moreso than the early unsubstantiated reports from some sort of new weapon.
Operation August Storm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm)

...and when Germany entered the war, it was considered a 3rd world coutnry.

Unlikely. The term wasn't even coined until the 50s.

2)Which battle was the most important of the whole war? Why?

The battle of the Atlantic.

They could have invaded Britain shortly after the Battle of Britain while it was still crippled.

Yes, they could have invaded. It would however have been a farcical rout though if they stuck to their Operation Sealion plans. Are you suggesting that having been defeated in the air, and facing British naval supremacy in the channel the Axis should have invaded anyhow?

If Germany had
A. Not invaded the Soviets
B. Used his army and destroyed the british at dunkirk, wed all be writing in german right now.

I read an interesting essay once about how the Nazis could have beaten the soviets, or at least came closer to doing so, if Italy had managed to conquer Greece without begging for German backup, delaying the Soviet invasion for colder months.

If Germany had
A. Not invaded the Soviets
B. Used his army and destroyed the british at dunkirk, wed all be writing in german right now.

Even the Japanese?

Even the Japanese?
no, they'd be writing in manchu

(traditional script)

no, they'd be writing in manchu

(traditional script)

Okay then, what about the Finns and the Italians?

Okay then, what about the Finns and the Italians?
german, but they'd speak with a heavy bavarian accent

3)Could it have been possible that the axis would of won if they would of done somethings different, ie Invade Britain, instead of JUST bombing?


The biggest mistake for Hitler was going back on the truce with Russia and invading Russia. Lets go back to Napolean. He was one of the greatest military leaders of all time. (even if he had short-man syndrome). His mistake was invading russia durring the winter. You think Hitler, being as smart as he was (no joke, Hitler was smart, evil, but smart.) would have taken a lesson from history and not attack Russia especially during winter. He lost so many of his troops, and then Russia burned all the crop and everything so the Nazi troops just starved and died.

german, but they'd speak with a heavy bavarian accent

Warum?

Why?
Because Bavarian missionaries would bring civilization to the savage lands of Italy and Finland

Okay then, what about the Finns and the Italians?
Finns were the odd bunch back then though.

Fought off a bolshevik internal coup with aid from Nazi Germany pre-39, yet never liked being close to Germany and never had any real ties to them.

Fought the Russians in the Winter War (a brilliant underdog story if ever there was one) without German assistance, afaik. Would have been interesting to see what would have happened to them has the war panned out differently.

1) Was the Shoah(Holocaust) Preplanned by the Nazis, ie like when the party was first started, or was it something that just came along with time?

The Nazis were planning something along these lines. Whether it was specifically this, or merely reducing the status of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, etc. to something like farm animals, I can't say.

2)Which battle was the most important of the whole war? Why?

The Battle of Britian. But this was largely decided by one man's bloodlust. If Hitler had allowed the Luftwaffe to eliminate the RAF (which they were getting close to doing) before switching focus to the cities, then that would have been it really. The Royal Navy would try to prevent an invasion, but as was seen later in the war (Midway, Force Z (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse)) an enemy having air superiority (even temporarily, as seen during Midway) is fatal to a fleet.

Without the Commonwealth to worry about, Germany would have been able to commit far more to the invasion of the Soviet Union, and perhaps even have managed to defeat them. Then Germany would have been in a position, given a couple of years of reconstruction in Europe, to take on even the US if they wanted. Assuming the US had not already fallen to Fascism following the fall of the UK AND the Soviet Union.
The other possibility is that of a Soviet victory, happening years later than the 1945 end of the actual war. The Soviets would have then occupied the whole of Europe, all the way to Portugal - neutral states suffering the same fate Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania did while the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact was still in effect.

Either way, a very bleak scenario.


In another sense, Pearl Harbour was the real turning point of the war. The instant the US became involved, the result really was inevitable, it was only a question of how long it would take for the industrial capacity of the US to overwhelm the Axis.

3)Could it have been possible that the axis would of won if they would of done somethings different, ie Invade Britain, instead of JUST bombing?

See above.

4) How would the war of been different if Fancisco Franco joined in the war on the Axis, instead of being neutral?

The starvation seen in lands under German control during the later stages of the war would have been worse. Spain was so ruined after the civil war, Franco relied on supplies from neutral countries to feed his population.
A Spain actively fighting on the side of the Axis might have seen an invasion of Spain either instead of or as well as that of Italy. Invading France after this would have been easier. Maybe.


Oh, and the Finns... an impossible situation if ever there was one. A cursorary look at the Finnish experience of WW2 (see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War)) makes you throw out all your assumptions on WW2 - openly Jewish troops fighting on the side of the Axis, a democracy fighting alongside Germany and (technically) against other democracies, and so on.
They would have been invaded by the Germans had the Axis won, unless there was an overthrow of the government there.

They were two battles where there is no conceivable way that the Germans could've won, and they both were at a stage when the war was already lost.
I don't think they were that central.
No way was it already lost.
If Alamein had failed 8th Army would have been broken

They could have invaded Britain shortly after the Battle of Britain while it was still crippled. The Nazis could have waited to fight Russia when they had more territory.

Germany couldn't invade Britain after the Battle of Britain. What prevented Germany from invading was the very fact that Britain won the Battle of Britain. The RAF (just) managed to retain air supremacy, therefore the RN could operate in the English Channel with strong air protection, thus the RN would be able to decimate the German invasion fleet. Invasion prevented.

1) Was the Shoah(Holocaust) Preplanned by the Nazis, ie like when the party was first started, or was it something that just came along with time?Depends. Hitler most certainly had it planned when he renamed the party, but the "how" wasn't decided on until the Wannsee Conference in 1942.

2)Which battle was the most important of the whole war? Why?I'm pretty sure the entire campaign in North Africa was the most important. If the Axis had managed to secure enough oil, they would have held out much longer.

3)Could it have been possible that the axis would of won if they would of done somethings different, ie Invade Britain, instead of JUST bombing?Invading Britain is a bit tricky when you don't have anything to stop the Royal Navy. I suppose if Mussolini hadn't managed to get the Munich Conference about, the Axis would have stood a much better chance.

4) How would the war of been different if Fancisco Franco joined in the war on the Axis, instead of being neutral?Spain might have been occupied. The Axis might have taken Gibraltar, thus prolonging the war and threatening supply chains between the colonies and Britain, but in the end, it probably wouldn't have made much of a difference.

3)Could it have been possible that the axis would of won if they would of done somethings different, ie Invade Britain, instead of JUST bombing?


Depends on what you call win.

I'm pretty sure Germany could have come to peace with the UK and the US. Look we give back France, Greece, and a few other places. We keep a big amount of Poland / Tchequoslovakia / Austria and I give the rest 'autonomy'.
And we keep on fighting with those horrible russian communists.

One against one, they could have won. And they would have remained the main european power.

Maykoy

Depends on what you call win.

I'm pretty sure Germany could have come to peace with the UK and the US.

Surely just not declaring war on the US a year down the line would have been easier?

I think Hitler's Biggest mistake was opening up the Eastern Front. Like it has been said before that was a huge investment of resources. In the early part of the Battle of Britain the U-Boats were detsroying a lot of shipping to the Island that if they had kept that up along with the bombing of military targets they could have won the Battle of Britain. That and the Japanese waking the Sleeping Giant way too early.

No way was it already lost.
If Alamein had failed 8th Army would have been broken
But there was no realistic way that Rommel could have won in a situation like that.
El Alamein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_El_Alamein) was a battle rather different from the others in Africa. There was no way to maneuvre around, it was full frontal into a prepared position.

Montgomery had 250,000 men and a thousand tanks (and many new ones too).
Rommel had 85,000 guys (many Italians) and 375 tanks (most Italian and captured British, and lacking petrol).